Monday, October 13, 2008

Bravo!

This is from a friend of a friend. I hope she doesn't mind that I've copied and pasted it onto my blog. I've added her blog link to my Prop 8 link list so you can check out her newest posts. This is a fantastic essay! I wish I could write and express myself like this.

WHY I'M VOTING "YES" ON PROP 8, OR A NOTE BY A NEONATE LAWYER

by Carolyn Deverich

I have gay friends. I have straight friends. I love them both and respect their views. And I believe—sincerely—that we live in a country where all views are sacred and deserve to be respected and protected under the law.

That is why I support Proposition 8.

First, let me premise this post by stating that I’m not a raging, elephant-riding Republican or an unschooled, bible-bashing automaton (if you are either of these, I apologize if I offend). I've been around the proverbial block on the issue of free exercise. During my undergraduate studies, I chaired a regional committee on Constitutional autonomy in education. In 2003 and 2006 I wrote and published articles on the clash of First Amendment liberties and secular doctrine.[1] I worked under the leading counsel on First Amendment rights at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C. I'm not saying my views are more legitimate than anyone else's, I just want to clarify that I’m not spouting blindly on the subject.[2]

Now let’s all get one thing straight: religion will be affected by a redefinition of marriage. Both liberal and conservative scholars admit that the outcome of Proposition 8—whether passed or rejected—will dramatically shape the First Amendment landscape.[3] The basic premise of the debate pits First Amendment rights of free exercise against Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of equal protection. And legal scholars betting on the outcome predict universally that free exercise will lose the fight.[4]

I am not arguing that if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, churches will be silenced at the pulpit or forced to change their religious creed. But when free exercise and equal protection collide—and they will—free exercise will get the short end of the stick. Marc Stern, a contributing editor of “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts,” explains: “[N]o one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage w[ill], however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.”[5]

Take education, for instance.[6] In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court—not a vote of the people—redefined marriage just as occurred in California. In 2007, a Massachusetts elementary school began teaching kindergarten and first grade children about same-sex marriage using a book which told the story of a prince who “lived happily ever after” with another prince. (*I’m not commenting on the quality of the story here, just the legal outcome*). Some parents requested that their children be allowed to opt-out of such instruction until the seventh grade. They did not challenge the use of the book as part of the school’s curriculum. When the school district refused to let the children opt-out, the parents sued in federal court.

They lost. In a 47-page opinion, the First Circuit held that the parents’ right to choose traditional marriage education for their child was not protected by the First Amendment because same sex marriage was permitted by Massachusetts law.[7] Free exercise could not justify legal exemption where due process and equal protection rights were in play.[8]

A similar outcome is not only possible in California, but likely. California’s Supreme Court has already mandated same sex marriage under the law, and unless voters amend this law in November, the court decision stands. California schools would be authorized to teach the same sex tenets of California policy.[9] And it is not difficult to imagine a same sex curriculum under the Education Code which requires schools to teach children about marriage from kindergarten forward.[10]

When First Amendment rights are pitted against Fourteenth Amendment due process, somebody will get hurt. This is not a Chicken Little prophesy. It is a legally-recognized fact.[11] (For a brief note on the sham security blanket of the “In re Marriage opinion, see footnote 12).[12]

A collision of First Amendment and equal protection rights is not the only consequence of redefining marriage. If the California court’s “In re Marriage” decision stands, the American system will have failed. Our three-branch institution is governed by the “separation of powers” principle. Each governmental branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—has a distinct and constitutionally-limited role which “checks and balances” the others. The legislators make the laws. The executive enforces the laws. The judiciary makes sure the laws square with the Constitution. For the system to survive, the branches must play by these rules.

The “In re Marriage” decision was a check-and-balance mess. The California court stepped into distinctly legislative territory when it redefined marriage as between “any two people” in direct contravention of California voters. This definition was not an interpretation of existing law, it was the invention of a statutory right. Whether you’re liberal or conservative, gay or straight, the system isn’t working right.

Some same sex marriage supporters compare the current conflict to the civil rights movement. A poorer comparison does not exist. (I lie. Comparing Prop 8 to the Potato Famine of 1845 would be pretty bad.) This is not a civil rights issue. Wait. Let me say that again. *This is not a civil rights issue.* Civil rights are implicated when a “fundamental right” protected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is restricted. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage.[13]

An important distinction must be made here. Common usage of the term “rights” conflates two distinct legal meanings: those rights that are specially provided for under the Constitution (e.g., free speech), and those rights that exist simply because no law has been passed restricting them (e.g., the right to use a cell phone while driving). The latter type of right is not protected under the law and is subject to potential regulation. The former type is protected and cannot be withheld; however it must be constitutionally-derived.[14] To expand “fundamental rights” outside this boundary would unravel the fabric of American law.[15] Now to get technical. The Supreme Court has recognized a right to the marriage institution as defined by law.[16] And, as acknowledged by every court adjudicating the issue, both gay and straight citizens have equal access to this right.[17] Straight or gay, a citizen is allowed to “marry” as defined by law—i.e. to couple with a person of the opposite gender.[18] What same-sex marriage supporters are arguing for is the “fundamental right” to couple with any person. This is not a recognized “fundamental right.” In fact, the California Supreme Court’s entire premise for the “fundamental right” of same sex marriage rests on a misinterpretation of the “right to privacy,” a uniquely Californian entitlement concocted by a legislative staffer in the 1970s.[19] It is on this “privacy right” that California’s court-fabricated “right” to same-sex marriage derives.[20] (For a brief word on equal protection, see footnote 21 below.)[21]

Many of you reading this are Mormon, and I make a final note to you here. There are some of you who are up in arms—nay, outraged—that the church would dare enter the secular arena and preach politics from the pulpit. It offends your very soul that General Authorities are discussing the weighty affairs of government. To you, this entire situation just feels plain wrong. Your feelings are not misplaced. This situation is so wrong, it violates the founding principles of our nation. But the error is not on the church’s part, it is on the state’s. By authorizing the reconstruction of a markedly religious rite, the judiciary has violated Establishment Clause principles which prohibit government interference with religious faith. In effect, the state has shoved the church into the middle of the civic street, and we are trying to drag ourselves back onto the sidewalk again.

I support the right to believe. I support equal rights. And I endorse apportionment of the rights and liberties provided by our Constitution to every citizen—gay, straight, religious, or agnostic.[22] That is why I support Proposition 8.[23] It's not because I don't love my gay friends. It's not because I think people who believe differently than I do are bad. It's just that as a rights-respecting American citizen, I am not willing to override basic principles of Constitutional liberty.

[2] I also don't mean to sound like an arrogant, elitist snob. For the record, I still can't tie my shoelaces without singing the bunny song.

[3] Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the leading First Amendment law firm in the country noted that “[t]he impact of [the same sex marriage debate] will be severe and pervasive. This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations. …[T]he church is surrounded on all sides by the state [and] church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.” quoted in Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, Vol. 11, Issue 33 (May 15, 2006), available at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp; Mark Hemingway, “Gay Abandon,” National Review, July 14, 2008, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_/ai_n27925966.

[4] As law professor and gay marriage scholar Robin Wilson puts it, “If the courts treat [same sex marriage] as a ban on racial discrimination, then there’s not much likelihood that any religious claims will survive.” Nationally-recognized gay civil rights advocate and Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum agrees, noting that the clash between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty is real, and when the two conflict, “[one] ha[s] a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Both Felblum and Wilson are contributing editors of the recently published book, “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2008).

[8] For my legally-minded friends who prefer an in-depth breakdown: The Parker court analyzed the parents’ First Amendment claims under U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Wisconsin v. Yoder, which views due process and free exercise rights “interdependently.” 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Under the Yoder approach, the First Circuit looked to whether the school’s curriculum imposed a “constitutional burden on the[] [parents’] rights, or on those of their children.” Finding no parallel between the Yoder plaintiffs’ “unique and demanding religious way of life that is fundamentally incompatible with any schooling system” and the Parker parents’ religious objection to mainstream law, the court held that the parents had “no constitutional right to ‘direct how [the] public school teaches their child.’” In short, there was “no federal case under the Due Process Clause which has permitted parents to demand an exemption for their children from exposure to certain books used in public schools.”

[9] Thurston’s uninspired argument suggests that it won’t be MANDATORY to teach same sex education in the schools. Well sure, Thurston. I agree. But once a school DOES start teaching same sex marriage, parents can’t do much about it.

[11] I have a comment to those of you whipping out your copy of Morris A. Thurston’s “Mormon Myth” commentary (available at http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/secondversionresponsestosixconsequencesifprop8fails1.pdf): Aside from Thurston’s education argument which I already addressed, the entire premise of his “no-effect-from-gay-marriage” argument is that there are no on-point cases deriving an anti-traditional marriage stance from the adoption of same sex marriage. Seeing that only four states have legitimately addressed the same sex marriage issue—and only in the past five years—this is not particularly surprising . Legal scholars recognize that the redefinition of marriage “[is]not like a bone sticking out of a limb or blood spurting out of a wound. …It will be at least a full generation before all the consequences [of redefining marriage] are known. Like smoking, it will take years and decades to see the result.” Carrie A. Moore, “Gay Marriage Criticized,” Deseret News, August 23, 2008 (quoting Professor Lynn Wardle). Thurston’s “but it hasn’t happened!” argument is the equivalent of me saying I shouldn’t bother wearing a seatbelt because I haven’t gotten into an accident yet. Have you SEEN me on the freeway?

[12] Some same sex marriage supporters point to the language of the “In re Marriage” court as proof that traditional marriage citizens will not be impacted by a redefinition of marriage. Specifically, they quote the tail end of the argument which states, “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” “In re Marriage Cases,” 43 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2008). While I like that the court gives a shout-out to the traditional camp, this statement is mere “dicta”—the equivalent of a legal belch. It is not part of the court's actual holding, has nothing to do with the adjudicated issue, and is not enforceable in a court of law. It's just judges passing gas. So as for the argument that religion won’t be affected…it’s just a lot of wind.

[17] See e.g., Andersen v. King County, 158 Wash. 2d 1, 65 (2006) (law limiting marriage to marriage between one man and one woman ‘‘does not distinguish between persons of heterosexual orientation and homosexual orientation’’); Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting) (‘‘[t]he classification is not drawn between men and women or between heterosexuals and homosexuals, any of whom can obtain a license to marry a member of the opposite sex; rather, it is drawn between samesex couples and opposite-sex couples’’); cf. Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 359 (2006).

[18] Comparisons to the 1948 Perez v. Sharp case which compelled interracial marriage are not analogous for this reason. There, black citizens were not protected equally under the law because, unlike white men, they were not allowed to marry white women. Here, gay and straight citizens are treated identically under the law.

[19] That right, a two-word amendment to the California constitution, was designed to impose privacy restrictions on the disclosure of public records. See Bob Egelko, “‘... And Privacy’: How a Two-Word Amendment to the State Constitution in 1972 Led to the Legal Basis for Same-Sex Marriage in California,” California Lawyer (August 2008), available at http://californialawyermagazine.com/story.cfm?eid=895415&evid=1.

[21] A note on equal protection and discrimination (for Nate, particularly). Some posit the theory that side-by-side marriage and civil union laws violate the equal protection clause because they “single out” the gay class. However, “the constitution does not, of course, prevent the legislature from dealing differently with different classes of people. It means only that classifications must be based on natural and substantial differences, germane to the subject and purpose of the legislation, between those within the class included and those whom it leaves untouched.” Eielson v. Parker, 179 Conn. 552, 566, 427 A.2d 814 (1980) (see Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal. 3d 855, 861 (1973) (equal protection provisions permit legislation that singles out a class for distinctive treatment “if such classification bears a rational relation to the purposes of the legislation.”). A marriage statute purposed on the legal union of a man and a woman passes muster here. (See Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, (October 10, 2008) (slip op.) (Zarella, J., dissenting), available at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152G.pdf). On a non-legal plane, discrimination exists on both sides of the argument. Ironically, the same-sex marriage camp advocates a position that would result in the discrimination of those who oppose them. As Maggie Gallagher describes, under the proposed same-sex marriage arrangement “[p]eople who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don’t arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities.” Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, Volume 11, Issue 33 (May 15, 2006).

[22] I am MORE than supportive of ensuring that same sex couples receive identical status as heterosexual couples under the law. But reclassifying "marriage" wholesale --an act that will legally do NOTHING to the current rights of gay couples under California law—is not reflective of the rights authorized by our laws. Rights that are authorized are available to all citizens. See the California Code which provides that “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provision or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Cal. Fam. C. § 297.5.

[23] On the most fundamental level, these beliefs derive from my religious conviction in the words of our prophet, Thomas S. Monson. But that is fodder for another day.

Thanks for posting this Elizabeth. I'm copying it into my folder on same sex unions. The writer is brilliant, in the right place at the right time. She's one of those angels sent to earth for this time.